14 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i 2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i | 6 | 12 |
Christopher R. Ayotte v. State of Mainegreen2 sentences2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i 2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i | 5 | 6 |
Newell v. Stategreen2 sentences2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i 2023If each statutory provision requires a unique proof of fact, the Blockburger test is satisfied and there is no double jeopardy violation by subsequent prosecutions or multiple punishments. 13 Ayotte v. State, 2015 ME 158, ¶ 14 , 129 A.3d 285 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me. 1977). [¶23] Here, the State agrees with Chase that theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Count 5) is a lesser-included offense of robbery (Count 2), and that domestic violence assault (Count 3) is a lesser-i | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Dixongreen2 sentences2015The traditional test for determining whether multiple punishments are for the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes — the “same-elements” test, sometimes referred to as the “Blockburger test” — “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offen[s]e and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.” United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). 2015The traditional test for determining whether multiple punishments are for the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes — the “same-elements” test, sometimes referred to as the “Blockburger test” — “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offen[s]e and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.” United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). | 1 | 2 |
State of Maine v. Aubrey Armstronggreen2 sentences2023See Armstrong, 2019 ME 117, ¶ 25 , 212 A.3d 856 . 2023See Armstrong, 2019 ME 117, ¶ 25 , 212 A.3d 856 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rosa Briscoegreen2 sentences2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat 2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Shirley Maggitt and Tommy Maggittgreen2 sentences2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat 2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Debbe Marquardtgreen2 sentences2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat 2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dominic L. Serino, United States of America v. John L. Closegreen2 sentences2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat 2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Goldberggreen2 sentences2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat 2013See Serino, 835 F.2d at 930 . "[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."' 2 See id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 2 In United States v. Goldberg, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts observed of the Blockburger test that it "is primarily a test of legislative intent; because Congress can impose lengthy or multiple punishments under a single stat | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fairfieldgreen2 sentences2013"The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a defendant who has been convicted of a crime from a second prosecution for the same offense and .from multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Fairfield, 644 A.2d 1052, 1054 (Me. 1994) (emphasis added). 2013"The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a defendant who has been convicted of a crime from a second prosecution for the same offense and .from multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Fairfield, 644 A.2d 1052, 1054 (Me. 1994) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences1992In Grady , however, the Court explained that the Blockburger test applied particularly “in the context of multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution.” Grady, 495 U.S. at 516-17 , 110 S.Ct. at 2090-91 (citation omitted). 1992In Grady , however, the Court explained that the Blockburger test applied particularly “in the context of multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution.” Grady, 495 U.S. at 516-17 , 110 S.Ct. at 2090-91 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Maine v. Michael Martinelli
green
2 sentences2025But when the conduct is distinct—that is, when crimes are charged with respect to separate acts or transactions—then the Blockburger test and double jeopardy analysis “generally are inapplicable.” State v. Martinelli, 2017 ME 217, ¶ 9 , 175 A.3d 636 . [¶18] The elements of elevated aggravated assault require the State to prove that a person (1) intentionally or knowingly (2) caused serious bodily injury to another person (3) with the use of a dangerous weapon. 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A). 2025But when the conduct is distinct—that is, when crimes are charged with respect to separate acts or transactions—then the Blockburger test and double jeopardy analysis “generally are inapplicable.” State v. Martinelli, 2017 ME 217, ¶ 9 , 175 A.3d 636 . [¶18] The elements of elevated aggravated assault require the State to prove that a person (1) intentionally or knowingly (2) caused serious bodily injury to another person (3) with the use of a dangerous weapon. 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A). | 2 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Martinelli
green
2 sentences2025But when the conduct is distinct—that is, when crimes are charged with respect to separate acts or transactions—then the Blockburger test and double jeopardy analysis “generally are inapplicable.” State v. Martinelli, 2017 ME 217, ¶ 9 , 175 A.3d 636 . [¶18] The elements of elevated aggravated assault require the State to prove that a person (1) intentionally or knowingly (2) caused serious bodily injury to another person (3) with the use of a dangerous weapon. 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A). 2025But when the conduct is distinct—that is, when crimes are charged with respect to separate acts or transactions—then the Blockburger test and double jeopardy analysis “generally are inapplicable.” State v. Martinelli, 2017 ME 217, ¶ 9 , 175 A.3d 636 . [¶18] The elements of elevated aggravated assault require the State to prove that a person (1) intentionally or knowingly (2) caused serious bodily injury to another person (3) with the use of a dangerous weapon. 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A). | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1994Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) (multiple punishments); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 168-69 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226-27 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (applying the so-called Blockburger test to successive prosecutions). 1994Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) (multiple punishments); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 168-69 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226-27 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (applying the so-called Blockburger test to successive prosecutions). | 2 | 1992–1994 |
State of Maine v. Kyle A. Chase
green
2 sentences2024State v. Chase, 2023 ME 32, ¶ 22 , 294 A.3d 154 (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 2024State v. Chase, 2023 ME 32, ¶ 22 , 294 A.3d 154 (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.